-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 261
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
increase code cov for sources #1343
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1343 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 72.97% 73.80% +0.83%
==========================================
Files 160 160
Lines 8151 8075 -76
==========================================
+ Hits 5948 5960 +12
+ Misses 1476 1416 -60
+ Partials 727 699 -28
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
/hold |
Can you rerun |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
/ok-to-test
Left a comment. Thanks for doing this. Seems like a third_party dependency is causing some of the issue in CI.
APIVersion: resourceVersion, | ||
Kind: resourceKind, | ||
}} | ||
func createAPIServerSource(name, serviceAccount, mode string, resourceKind, resourceVersion []string, ceOverrides map[string]string, sink duckv1.Destination) *v1.ApiServerSource { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Whenever I see a function with so many parameters (in code or test) I wonder whether a struct should be created to hold the related params and the struct passed to the func or be a method?
@itsmurugappan wrt the verify error, In my case I've update
|
/retitle increase code cov for sources |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
/lgtm
@itsmurugappan: thanks! Are you going to add more more to the PR? else please unhold
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: itsmurugappan, navidshaikh The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
@navidshaikh i have pushed some more changes. This PR is good to go. I am also working on a follow up or with some unit tests to increase the coverage. |
The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
|
/lgtm |
Description
Increase code coverage for sources